[Wittrs] Re: When is "brain talk" really dualism?
- From: "swmaerske" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:08:43 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Cayuse" <z.z7@...> wrote:
>
> Stuart wrote:
> > Cayuse wrote:
> >> Stuart wrote:
> >>> Cayuse wrote:
> >>>> I don't deny that the distinctions between private and public, and
> >>>> between subjective and objective, are useful distinctions.
> >>>
> >>> Then what else do you need? Why seek some kind of larger
> >>> metaphysical doctrine (even a doctrine purported to sustain a
> >>> concept of an "all" that lacks grammar and referent that leads
> >>> to a surrender of thought)?
> >>
> >> Nothing is needed. Nothing is sought.
> >> No metaphysics are required. It simply "is".
> >
> > Yes, so my roshi often said and so I agree, on one level. But if that is
> > the level of interest, what's the point of talking here about this at all?
> > Indeed, there's nothing to be said, not even what you have just said above.
>
> The point is to address any claim concerning the "scientific investigation of
> consciousness". My claim is that any such investigation can only address
> whatever empirical content consciousness is stipulated to have, and that
> Nagel's use of the term has no empirical content. Moreover, that I would be
> interested in any argument that the two can be entirely divorced.
>
If they can't be divorced, as you claim, then you ARE arguing that one cannot
empirically study brains and the consciousness they produce. But of course they
can be divorced and one doesn't need to make a logical argument to see this.
All one needs to do is to note what we actually find in the world, namely
brains and the many features of consciousness we call "mind" and the
existential relation that obtains between them which appears to flow from
brains to minds.
Anyway, after much discussion here I have concluded that you are mixed up in
your reading of Wittgenstein. No doubt you feel the same at this point about me
and my reading. One or both of us may be right though it's certainly not for
either of us to definitively say which, concerning ourselves, though if one of
us is right then that one can definitively say. But we don't know if we really
are and can't claim to know (though we may each feel confident in our own minds
that we are the ones who know). Such is the problem of knowledge and knowing.
SWM
Group Home Page: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html
Group Discussion Board: http://seanwilson.org/forum/
Google Archive: http://groups.google.com/group/Wittrs
FreeList Archive: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs
FreeList for September: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/09-2009
FreeList for August: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/08-2009
Group Creator's Page: http://seanwilson.org/
Today's Messages:
http://seanwilson.org/forum/index.php?SØ86f18704524b9992bac8164354cd96&SQ=0&t=mnav&rng=1&rng2=0&u?400&forum_limiter=&btn_submit¾gin+Search
Messages From Last 3 Days:
http://seanwilson.org/forum/index.php?SØ86f18704524b9992bac8164354cd96&SQ=0&t=mnav&rng=3&rng2=0&u?400&forum_limiter=&btn_submit¾gin+Search
This Week's Messages:
http://seanwilson.org/forum/index.php?SØ86f18704524b9992bac8164354cd96&SQ=0&t=mnav&rng=7&rng2=0&u?400&forum_limiter=&btn_submit¾gin+Search
Yahoo Archive:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMzg0Z3FnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI4NjkzODY5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTYzMjIyNwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEyNTE4NDE4MDc-
Other related posts:
